Guest AuthorIn 2012, the Center for Digital Government (CDG) published a review of the information technology effectiveness of state governments and issued grades for each state.
Florida, along with Idaho, received a “D” – the lowest of all states. To put this in perspective, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and North Carolina all received a “B” or better.
It does not help that Florida has no state chief information officer and no central agency that is responsible for IT direction, policy and operations at a statewide or “enterprise” level.
There is no statutory office for IT security and no central office with the overall goal to make our government more efficient and effective at a statewide level. While the Senate and House both drafted bills to create a new IT agency during the 2013 session, nothing was passed.
Not surprisingly, it does not take much to find many failed IT projects in the State of Florida. Some have spanned years and cost tens of millions of dollars before being abandoned. At least two have occurred recently — but there are others and it is not just a recent phenomenon.
For sure, part of the problem is the lack of a unified IT organization with IT expertise, budgetary authority and accountability. I don’t know anyone remotely familiar with this issue who disagrees with this.
However, there is a more serious problem that will continue to impede Florida’s progress regardless of what organizational structure may be put in place – unless there is a fundamental change in the way our leaders view technology.
The CDG study points out that states that are effective with IT view information technology as a way to mitigate difficult economic circumstances. Others, however, view IT as an expense and something that can be cut to save money. Florida falls in the latter category. I believe this is the root cause of Florida’s IT ineffectiveness.
Information technology does not make things better. Better business processes make things better. Information technology is just the enabler that allows good ideas to become better ways of doing things.
Simply cutting IT costs is counter-productive to government efficiency and economic growth. This line of thinking is similar to deciding not to build a needed four-lane highway only because it would cost more than maintaining the old two-lane highway.
The state, and especially the legislative budget offices, should abandon the idea that a new business process should cost less than the old one. This is shortsighted, inhibits progress and sometimes dooms projects to failure before they get started.
This notion is, for the most part, driven by well-intentioned people who know more about the budgetary process than they do about information technology and business process modernization. Yes, sometimes a new business process is going to cost more than the old way and require money from the Legislature.
The return on investment should not be measured on the operational cost savings of the process itself, but rather on the long-term benefits that accrue from the improved process.
Better processes could result in reduced fraud in social services programs, quicker services for new businesses, more tourists coming to the state and staying longer, more families moving to Florida, fewer unemployed Floridians, improved tax collections and more.
When legislators fail to provide enough money for a project (as they often do here), agencies are more likely to award contracts to the lowest bidders.
No one should be surprised when a $20 million project fails if the other bids submitted were $40 million. “Best value” too often ends up being “no value”. The public doesn’t hear much about such projects — but they are there.
Florida needs an authoritative IT agency with leadership that understands these issues and the need for forward-thinking ideas and investments. Enterprise IT policy for the state should be set by this needed expert agency in conjunction with executive branch leadership that understands the business issues in the state.
It should not be set by legislative budget staffs and purchasing offices. Our legislators will have an opportunity, once again, in the upcoming session to fix this. Let’s hope they do.
